Harmony of Bible and Science Presented in a Series of Articles

Bible and Science - When? Part 1

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen. 1:26).

Perhaps nothing generates a more controversial and less spiritually edifying atmosphere than debating how and when the events depicted in the first chapter of Genesis took place. If we could bottle the emotional energy expended in such discussions, we would no doubt completely solve the energy problem on this planet. Many people holding differing views on the time-span involved in the creation story in Genesis may be sincere and intelligent Bible students. Nevertheless, sincerity needs to be tempered with humility and respect for others who may have opinions differing from their own.

Various theories reviewed

We will briefly review some of the theories put forward by Bible believers with respect to the time and circumstances of the creation story. I will tacitly assume that if you believe in evolution you have already stopped reading these narratives and I will thus concentrate on reaching those who believe in both the Bible and science! All I ask is that the reader keep in mind three things: First, that the details provided in scripture about how and when creation occurred are sparse and hence, one ought not be dogmatic. Second, that they not dismiss scientific evidence for the age of the earth and universe, for God is the author of nature as well as the Bible. Finally, that they not elevate their belief in any particular model of the creation story to a first principle to do so would be contrary to scriptures.

There are a number of explanations that have been put forward to understand the timing of the events in the first chapter of Genesis. I will briefly outline each in turn and then go back and take a detailed look at each of these scenarios with an attempt to lay out the pros and cons for each model of creation. There are essentially six common views that challenge our imaginations in seeking to interpret Genesis 1. Consider then the following models:

1. Strict literal view – Considers that Genesis 1 records events that happened 6,000 years ago when the entire heavens and earth were created in seven literal 24-hour days.
2. Gap theory – Here the heavens and earth are considered to have been created a long time ago (literally billions of years in the past are possible) with the present dispensation dating back to 6,000 years ago when God reconstituted the physical environment on earth, which had been depleted due to some unspecified global catastrophe.
3. Fiat hypothesis – This idea considers that the seven days of creation were seven literal days in which God declared His will by commandments (or fiats). The actual work of creation carried out by the angels could have taken millions or even billions of years.
4. Revelation model – Here the seven days of creation are viewed as seven days of revelation to Moses (perhaps in dreams). Moses then recorded what he saw as a seven-day narrative even though the actual events may have spanned innumerable eons.
5. Drama premise – This proposal considers the events in Genesis 1 to be, in a sense, a dramatic scenario. Each day in the narrative does not refer to a literal time period, but instead to an act in Hebrew dramatic form that describes a stage of creation.
6. Relativity supposition – This view of the creation story considers the events in Genesis to be seven literal days, but not days governed by the rotation of planet earth. Rather, the time scales of creation are considered in relation to the time expansion derived from relativity theory based on the assumption that God moves in a far different time frame from that which governs clocks on earth.

Each of these theories has obvious proponents or they wouldn’t exist for me to write about. One thing I will not do is present a theory of my own. I don’t have one. There are enough out there to argue about without me contributing further confusion! I have selected these theories for discussion because the bottom line for all of them is that they completely accept the idea that the heavens, earth and all that is contained within them are the product of God’s creative power. None of these concepts have anything in common with the theory of evolution, which completely rejects the concept of a God of creation.

Read more ...

Bible and Science - Monkey Business

And God created…every living creature that moveth (Gen. 1:21).

Is man the product of specific creation or the result of a long evolutionary process whose direct lineage can be traced back to a branching from higher order primates? In other words, are we the descendents of monkeys,¹ as popular science glossies seem to continually emphasize, or is there another explanation for our existence? In London, England, is one of the most famous Natural History Museums in the world and among its most illustrious exhibitions is the “Darwin Center” which houses many of the most important artifacts related to the theory of evolution. Centerpieces of this exhibit are the fossil and graphic displays related to the evolution of Homo sapiens² (that’s us!) including the obligatory picture of the ascent of mankind from primitive ape-like creatures shown in the accompanying figure.³

Man’s supposed development

Modern man is the only living example of the animal family group known as Hominid.⁴ Homo sapiens have a number of features that distinguish them from their (hypothetical?) ape-like ancestors. These principal differences are: 1) Larger brain size – allowing the development of higher order reasoning powers; 2) Ability to walk erect – lengthening the foraging distances and providing the means for carrying burdens while mobil; and an 3) opposable thumb – permitting grasping and the capacity to use more complex implements (and weapons!).

The earliest form of such a creature is the genus called Australopithecus with a specific member of that group known as an australopithecine. This being is said to have appeared in Africa about 4 million years ago and was about 4 to 5 feet tall for the male, and somewhat smaller in stature for the female, with a brain capacity about one-third the size of modern Homo sapiens

With time this creature supposedly evolved to a taller stature and with an enlarged brain capacity. Along with these changes, the jaw and brow features also altered into the form more common in today’s human beings. The figure above depicts this so-called evolutionary progression. This illustration is replicated over and over again in one form or another in school textbooks and natural history museum exhibits.⁵

The most famous fossil find related to this genus has been dubbed Australopithecus afarensis and was found in Hadar, Ethiopia, in 1974, by the American anthropologists Donald Johanson and Tom Gray. This creature has become popularly known as “Lucy” since the fossil appears to be that of a young woman.⁶ “Lucy” is estimated to be anywhere from 3 to 3.6 million years old. It is from this fossil, and related finds, that the so-called origins of mankind out of Africa have been presumed.

A number of other later hominid fossils showing the progression of evolution presumably originating with Australopithecus afarensis have been identified. Indeed, fragments of hundreds of hominid fossils have been found at various places in Africa, Europe and Asia. These have been found over the span of the previous century, and include (among others): Homo habilis, Homo erectus (Peking Man), Java Man, Cro-Magnon Man, Neanderthal Man, Piltman   Man, Nebraska Man and finally Homo sapiens. Each of these fossil remains supposedly brings us closer to ourselves. For example Peking man (Sinanthropus pekinensis) is thought to have lived between 600,000 and 400,000 years ago in what is now northern China. Cro-Magnons were prehistoric human beings who lived in Europe, Asia, and North Africa from about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago and thus presumably contemporary with the development of Homo Sapiens.

Is it evolution?

If you have been following me so far, the key idea is that over the past four million years modern man purportedly evolved from apes as a distinct branch of biological family know as hominids. A succession of fossils has been found dating from the time of “Lucy” that show hominid creatures getting taller with larger brain capacity and with aesthetic features that are less and less ape-like. Now the critical question to answer is this: Does the fossil data actually fit the Darwinian evolutionary model or is some other explanation possible? However, before we address this question completely we need to take a foray into considerations on how one should interpret scientific data.

Evaluating the evidence

Religious people often dismiss the fossil record with disdain, claiming that the age of fossils has been either fudged by scientists, or that they are the result of so-called “flood” geology, which occurred as a consequence of the deluge in the time of Noah. As for the former claim, while it is true that some individual scientists have been so anxious to prove the theory of evolution that they have tampered with the evidence, as in the case of Piltdown man,⁷ it is equally true that such false claims eventually get exposed. It is patently unfair to accuse scientists of deliberately fudging evidence. As a rule they are no better, or worse than people in any other profession at being honest (excluding possibly politicians!).

Read more ...

Bible and Science - How Old Is The Universe

Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens
are the work of thy hands. [Psalm 102:25]

When was the universe created? Did it happen on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC at 9 a.m. or did it occur 20 billion years ago, plus or minus 10 billion years? To the average person, either of these scenarios might seem pretty far-fetched. I know I certainly have my qualms when I hear proponents on either side proclaim their particular viewpoint with absolute certainty. Let’s take a closer look at both the literal biblical and current scientific opinions on the age of the universe.

Bible chronology

The traditional biblical dating, which for a long time appeared in almost every edition of the Authorized Version of the Bible, was worked out by James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland and also Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College, Dublin, based on his interpretation of Biblical genealogy.^[i] Although the precise 9 a.m. timing is often attributed to him it does not seem to appear explicitly in Bishop Ussher’s writing, but is probably a detail added by a contemporary, John Lightfoot (1602-1675).^[ii]

We can make some allowances for the exact dating, since one cannot be entirely certain of the biblical genealogies. In fact in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul argues against endless debating about genealogies; it is clear that he primarily had in mind specific reference to the pride of some in the early church who could trace their heritage back to their supposedly superior ancestry, nevertheless it is probably well to also heed his advice in trying to figure out exact Biblical dating.^[iii] Regardless of how you slice it, the Biblical view considers the present creation on earth to be approximately 6,000 years old.

Leeway allowed by scripture

Detailed consideration of Genesis 1:1 leaves considerable leeway in identifying exactly when the universe and planet earth were first formed. The purpose of this essay is to focus on the scientific and biblical arguments for dating the beginning of creation. It should be obvious that none of the religious arguments preclude that the heavens and the earth could be very old and created at some distant time in the past styled as: in the beginning.

That beginning could have been billions of years ago and still easily fit within the realm of what is said in Genesis 1:1 as we have pointed out earlier. Why the earth was without form and void, when the present dispensation was created, we are not told. Some scientists and a lot of Christians seem to object to the concept of a very old earth (and of course its obvious corollary: an even more ancient universe) and opt for a much more recent specific creation that gave us the present order of things. Why these objections?

Religious people seem to think that if the earth were billions of years old then it would be admitting that enough time had passed for the evolutionist’s arguments that gradual change produced life as we know it. Physicists like to trust in what they can measure and it is precisely from observations of the universe they believe that it must be very old indeed. Let us see why physicists have come to this conclusion.

Assumption of unchanging physical laws

The most direct means of measuring the age of the universe is to observe the stars and galaxies in the night sky. The velocity of light is 186,000 miles/second and is entirely independent of the motion of the observer. This is a basic tenet of the theory of relativity and has been tested by many experiments over the past 80 years, all of which have provided the expected verification. Further, it is accepted by scientists that the laws of physics were created with the universe and it is a basic element of faith among physicists that these laws have remained unchanged ever since. That means that by applying the laws of physics to things we can observe today, we can have confidence that the same laws worked in the same way whether it was yesterday or billions of years ago.

Read more ...

Bible and Science - Creation of Adam and Eve

The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being Gen. 2:7.

Some years ago I was about to close my teenage Sunday school class on Genesis with a prayer when one student said, “Is there time for one quick question? “Yes,” I replied. “Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?” After recovering my composure I said, “Unfortunately that will take a little too long to answer. We’ll have to discuss it next week.” I was hoping that by next week I’d either know the answer or the student would have forgotten the question!

Later, on reflection, I realized how much we assume about Adam and Eve without really having proof. I have heard it said that Adam and Eve were created as adults. However, the Bible never explicitly says this and it is best not to make idle guesses. Since we are the direct inheritors of our first parents’ genetic makeup it is very unlikely that they looked any different than we do. For what it is worth, generally renaissance artist’s depictions of Adam and Eve have them anatomically identical to you and me (not that this proves anything, but it at least tells us how others treated the issue).

Bible narrative compared with others

Bible critics have attacked the concept of Adam being formed by God from the dust of the ground as just another ancient myth and legend. Furthermore, the very suggestion that the entire human race descended from just two individuals was considered impossible. In rejecting the Bible story of mankind’s creation they seek to undercut any possible attribution to a supernatural power. The bottom line is that the scriptures say that man was created in the image of the Elohim¹ and the exact physical mechanism of how it was done is not explicitly revealed. But this much we do know; the Bible story of the making of man and the fact that the human race alive today is descended from one man and one woman is entirely scientifically sound.

To get a better picture of the validity of the Genesis story, let us compare the narrative in the opening pages of the Bible with the tales of creation derived from other ancient cultures.

Almost every ancient culture had a story connected with the origin of its ancestors. I will describe a few that have caught my attention and ask the reader to keep in mind a comparison of these tales with the simple declaration in Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Sample creation myths

The ancient Babylonians believed that their god, Marduk, in the form of the water god Tiamat, conquered the void that was the universe by using her broken flesh to shape the world.² The Hopi Indians believed in the Spider god Tawa, in cooperation with other divinities, brought human beings into the world.³

Prehistoric Scandinavian people had a particularly colorful account of how life was created; they believed that before there was earth, heaven or seas there was only formless void. To the north of the void existed a realm of cold barren ice and to the south of the void a region of flaming fire. Somehow these interacted and from the drops of melted ice came life in the form of a hoarfrost giant being and a cow!⁴ The Vikings believed that their god Odin and his brothers created a man named Askr and a woman called Embla from the branches of an ash tree and an elm tree, respectively.

Read more ...

Bible and Science - How Did the Beginning Begin?

Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? (Job 38:33)

How did the universe form in the first place and what existed before there ever was a universe? While we may feel that the answers to these questions shouldn’t concern us, I have found that giving some thought to these issues and being able to give a reasonable response to people can be very helpful in preaching work and also in dealing with the inquiring minds of our Sunday school scholars.

When the 17^th century theologian James Usher first formed his biblical chronology dating the beginning of creation at 4004 B.C., he was supposedly asked by one brave soul “And pray, Holy Father, what was God doing before He created the Universe?” To which Usher thunderously replied, “Creating hell for those who ask questions such as that?”^[i] Modern science still cannot answer the question, What initiated the universe, though many scientists around the world are pursuing the answer. Some of the aspects of this quest will be presented in this article.

The rhetorical question posed by the Lord to Job (38:33) still presents a challenge to our understanding of the beginning of space/time. Obviously, we weren’t there either before, or at the time, the universe was created. As we have stated in an earlier article, the known laws of physics have not been able to help us either, because they break down at the exact moment of creation.^[ii] This is called a singularity in physics, which is a point in space/time where all the known equations of physics lead to infinities and cannot be renormalized to get a meaningful solution. Nevertheless, we know that the energy to create the Universe had to come from somewhere and physicists are currently trying to construct models which make sense in terms of providing a framework that rationalizes the universe as we currently find it.

One thing that has shown some promise is the attempt to unify the laws of physics in what has become known as “string theory.” The details are very complicated, but the underlying principle is that the mathematics of vibrating infinitely short strings of multiple dimensions may lead to a fundamental understanding of the Universe. This leads to some very astonishing ideas, the strangest being that we really do not live in a four dimensional (three spatial and one time dimension) world, but rather one made up of ten or eleven dimensions. It is presumed that at the time the universe was created the six or seven “hidden” dimensions folded in on themselves and wrapped themselves into such small dimensions of space that they can no longer be observed (but they still influence the laws of physics).

Illustrating a multi-dimensional universe

How can we imagine this multi-dimensional universe? We can get a picture in our mind of dimensionality by thinking about space in the following way: in general, if we consider a flat surface — say of this sheet of paper — then we are in a two-dimensional world. We can locate any point on this piece of paper by knowing only two coordinates, x and y.

We can extend our thinking to four coordinates by considering the following example: Suppose you are asked to meet a complete stranger in the EmpireStateBuildingin New York. To make the meeting actually occur you would have to know exactly where to meet the stranger and also at what time. You convey back to the stranger a message via e-mail that the building is on the corner of Fifth Avenueand 34^th Street and you will meet them on the 86^th floor observation deck at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2003. You have provided all the space/time information required, three location dimensions and the time dimension. Yet when you get to 86^th floor you find that there are several hundred people on the observation deck and you haven’t a clue which one is the stranger! Clearly as the space shrunk to the neighborhood of the 86^th floor more information was required to satisfy your rendezvous.

Read more ...